Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

Unread postby michael.suede » Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:41 pm

Read the article here with supporting links and better formatting:

http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/01/ ... ciousness/

1. n /∞ = 0 and ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past. If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity. Obviously this is a logical paradox that can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

2. If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function. If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence. Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes. Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true. Regardless, it is a logical paradox to conclude that consciousness is the result of QM processes.

Decoherence as an explanation results in either a many worlds or many minds interpretation. A many minds interpretation leads to a continuous infinity of minds existing in an infinite number of universes. This leads to a system that is unable to explain single photon interference patterns in experiments such as the double slit experiment, which clearly means this is not a logical or rational description of this present physical universe.

To quote wiki on the many worlds interpretation:

“decoherence by itself may not give a complete solution of the measurement problem, since all components of the wave function still exist in a global superposition, which is explicitly acknowledged in the many-worlds interpretation. All decoherence explains, in this view, is why these coherences are no longer available for inspection by local observers. To present a solution to the measurement problem in most interpretations of quantum mechanics, decoherence must be supplied with some nontrivial interpretational considerations (as for example Wojciech Zurek tends to do in his Existential interpretation). However, according to Everett and DeWitt the many-worlds interpretation can be derived from the formalism alone, in which case no extra interpretational layer is required.”


Further:

“The many-worlds interpretation should not be confused with the similar many-minds interpretation which defines the split on the level of the observers’ minds.The many-worlds interpretation leads to a deterministic view of nature in which there is no special role for the human mind.[71]“


oops, I guess we are back to determinism.

3. Given that we have established that consciousness is either infinite and external to the brain, QM is wrong, or all processes are deterministic, we know that any attempt to explain consciousness as being local to the brain must do so using only deterministic biochemical processes. If biochemical processes are truly the source of consciousness, then you have no free will because all chemical processes are deterministic in nature. If this is the case, then you aren’t actually choosing to read this article. Nature has pre-destined you to read this article. Your life has no meaning since you don’t actually control it. It’s either that or consciousness is infinite, eternal and external to the brain and this physical universe.

4. Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility. This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain. Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious and that attempting to do so by way of QM results in a logical contradiction, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of biochemical processes.

5. The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain. There is no known mechanism of memory transport in the brain. There is no center point in the brain that can be observed to initiate conscious thought. Any attempt to explain memory as being local to the brain requires a retention of state. If matter changes state, information is lost. This is a fundamental proven law of the universe. Because we know QM is not logically capable of explaining consciousness and because we know LTP is the only physical mechanism of state retention and because we know there are not enough synapses to account for human memory, it is illogical conclude that all memory is local to the brain. If consciousness is a product of deterministic biochemical processes, this again violates logic on grounds of emergence as well as invalidating free will.

So here in lies a choice. You can choose to believe that consciousness is the product of biochemical processes (which is illogical) and that you have no free will, or you can choose to believe that consciousness is eternal and external to the brain which allows for free will. No matter what, you can not say that consciousness is internal to the brain and that you have free will. This is not a logical option.

Chose wisely atheists… oops! I’m sorry, you don’t have a choice. Deterministic chemical processes already made that decision for you



Further supporting evidence: Lancet 2001; 358: 2039-45

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archiv ... et_NDE.htm

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.


Credit to William Bray for his logical rigor in helping me form these arguments, along with and countless other philosophers and physicists.
michael.suede
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

Unread postby hertz » Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:33 pm

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_various/on_truth_and_lies.htm

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.

There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no additional mission which would lead it beyond human life. Rather, it is human, and only its possessor and begetter takes it so solemnly as though the world's axis turned within it. But if we could communicate with the gnat, we would learn that he likewise flies through the air with the same solemnity, that he feels the flying center of the universe within himself. There is nothing so reprehensible and unimportant in nature that it would not immediately swell up like a balloon at the slightest puff of this power of knowing...

To begin with, a nerve stimulus is transferred into an image: first metaphor. The image, in turn, is imitated in a sound: second metaphor. And each time there is a complete overleaping of one sphere, right into the middle of an entirely new and different one...It is this way with all of us concerning language; we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things--metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities. Thus the genesis of language does not proceed logically in any case, and all the material within and with which the man of truth, the scientist, and the philosopher later work and build, if not derived from never-never land, is at least not derived from the essence of things.

What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions
hertz
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 12:29 pm

Re: Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

Unread postby mague » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:31 am

michael.suede wrote:
So here in lies a choice. You can choose to believe that consciousness is the product of biochemical processes (which is illogical) and that you have no free will, or you can choose to believe that consciousness is eternal and external to the brain which allows for free will. No matter what, you can not say that consciousness is internal to the brain and that you have free will. This is not a logical option.


Both is right actually. Consciousness is internal and external. Those are just different states of "consciousness-matter".

A rather traditional metaphor for consciousness is the ocean. The ocean is one unit and made out of the same matter everywhere. And at the same time its different everywhere. It has peaks and lows, areas of high force potential and areas of low force potential. In a bigger picture it exists as fluid, gas, dropplets and ice. Its inside and outside of us and, as science tells us, everywhere in the universe. The oecean remains an ocean, its just got bigger in our perception.

My radio is able to "recognize" any signal from 87.5 to 108 MHz. That doesnt mean there isnt more then this.

Mind-expanding isnt just an esoteric term, it means to expand the frequenzy band of perception. In the radio example this means to go below 87.5 and above 108 MHz.

I am not sure if people should draw any conclusion from QM. We dont know if we "see" all that is happening. The only conclusion for now should be to accept that our existance doesnt end right outside our skin.

If we could paint dots into the air with our forefinger while standing still, all dots together would roughly form the shell of an egg. Within this egg-shape there is free will to some degree. It would be 100% free will if we wouldnt be intelligent enough to recognize that there is a world outside the egg-shape. Some of us forget, because they plaster their shell with pictures of their dreams. Once thy forgot. they get scared/angry if the outside consciousness penetrates their inner room. And, according to Buddhism, the inner consciousness hotspot, the self turns from self to ego. From hotspot (wave peak) of consciousness to despot. Because it starts to belive it should rule the inner part of the shell.

Once the shell is lucent again QM and consciousness may appear in a different/expanded way. Which is probably the real understanding ?
mague
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

Unread postby tayga » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:39 am

Nice post, Michael :D

michael.suede wrote:...Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics...


I'm a bit suspicious of this phrase. Does anyone actually call it that? It makes it read one of those hand-wavy invocations of QM where the author doesn't really understand the subject ;)

Chose wisely atheists…


You know, 'atheists' is a really bad term to use for what I would call reductionist materialists. I side with the deterministic side of the above argument and I definitely think that we are spiritual but I'm strongly opposed to religion a) because it's dogmatic, power-oriented and divisive and b) because I've read a bit of Saturnian cosmology and I have a good idea where the idea of Gods may have come from.

In fact 'atheists' in an American context is almost synonymous with 'non-Christians' and has, as a result, taken on something of the vilifying nature of the word 'terrorists' which is short hand for 'people who don't share my view and argue with me'.

... but that's not to argue with your main point. Just the positioning :D
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

Unread postby michael.suede » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:28 am

I felt it necessary to include Einstein's name to differentiate it from any other quantum theories.

I saw another comment on a different board that said the same thing, so I suppose I could remove it to avoid sounding odd.

I can't edit the post any more though because the time has expired. I don't know why the admins feel it is necessary to prevent people from editing their posts indefinitely.
michael.suede
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

Unread postby 303vegas » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:50 pm

hi. not sure if this really fits with the topic but here goes:

a couple of weeks before xmas i was round at my mum's house where she looks after my poor old invalide nan. i went to talk to nan and as we were chatting away i just happened to pick up a book from one of her boxes ('the loom of creation' by dennis milner and edward smart.) i asked if it was ok to look at it and she said i may as well as she's now blind and can't read anymore. after shooting the breeze for a bit i went through to the living room and opened the book at random. to my surprise it opened at chapter ten - 'experiments with aetheric forces.'

funny thing is, i'd been looking into ideas of the aether and was keen to know more.

now, was this all just coincidence or was i in some sub-concious way 'told' about the book and chapter by her sub-concious? a totally diferent conversation to the concious one we were having? as if to say ''oh, yore interested in the aether, eh? well, there's some interesting info in this book on this page - take a look.''

i personally think that there is a shared conciousness. our individual thoughts are our own but there's always a link between everyone, as in when you think "i wonder how such-and-such is" and you get a text, or when you know when you're being stared at and we've all met people who's 'vibes' we find disturbing or repellant. it would seem that these links are a lot stronger between relatives and people we are close to, i.e. 'on the same wavelength.' literaly.
love from lancashire!
User avatar
303vegas
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:55 am
Location: Rochdale, england

Re: Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

Unread postby StevenJay » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:21 am

michael.suede wrote:I can't edit the post any more though because the time has expired. I don't know why the admins feel it is necessary to prevent people from editing their posts indefinitely.

They would rather you do all editing prior to posting in order to maintain forum integrity. Any additional editing must be done as addendums in subsequent posts.
It's all about perception.
StevenJay
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Sedona, Arizona

Re: Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:33 pm

michael.suede wrote:Read the article here with supporting links and better formatting:

http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/01/ ... ciousness/

1. n /∞ = 0 and ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past.


WHAT?! who would make such an absurd argument?
Where to start?! Infinity, broken by some "point" , is no longer infinity! ""The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future," is the only logical speculation one can make! Unless there is evidence otherwise.


If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity.


I've addressed this previously. You are making conclusions that can not be supported. This is not logic. This doesn't even make sense! Playing with infinity leads to all sorts of black hole nonsense.


Obviously this is a logical paradox that can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.


Oh, give me a break! You set up a straw man paradox in your own mind, and come up with a conclusion that you do not support either logically nor empirically.

2.
If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function. If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence. Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes. Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true. Regardless, it is a logical paradox to conclude that consciousness is the result of QM processes.


Bringing in QM Theory to prove any point of an argument is going from the absurd to the ridiculous. IT'S THEORY! And highly speculative and falsified in several areas.

Decoherence as an explanation results in either a many worlds or many minds interpretation. A many minds interpretation leads to a continuous infinity of minds existing in an infinite number of universes.


I don't know....If you say so....but it sounds like nonsensical speculations.

This leads to a system that is unable to explain single photon interference patterns in experiments such as the double slit experiment, which clearly means this is not a logical or rational description of this present physical universe.


I agree that the present standard theory is not logical nor rational in many ways.

To quote wiki on the many worlds interpretation:


:roll:

“decoherence by itself may not give a complete solution of the measurement problem, since all components of the wave function still exist in a global superposition, which is explicitly acknowledged in the many-worlds interpretation. All decoherence explains, in this view, is why these coherences are no longer available for inspection by local observers. To present a solution to the measurement problem in most interpretations of quantum mechanics, decoherence must be supplied with some nontrivial interpretational considerations (as for example Wojciech Zurek tends to do in his Existential interpretation). However, according to Everett and DeWitt the many-worlds interpretation can be derived from the formalism alone, in which case no extra interpretational layer is required.”


I REPEAT:... :roll:



“The many-worlds interpretation should not be confused with the similar many-minds interpretation which defines the split on the level of the observers’ minds.The many-worlds interpretation leads to a deterministic view of nature in which there is no special role for the human mind.[71]“


So? It's just a highly speculative opinion..

oops, I guess we are back to determinism.

3. Given that we have established that consciousness is either infinite and external to the brain, QM is wrong, or all processes are deterministic,.


I can't agree "we" have established anything of the sort. Not from the arguments given!

.
we know that any attempt to explain consciousness as being local to the brain must do so using only deterministic biochemical processes. .


Speculative assumptions as conclusions. hasty conclusion.

.
If biochemical processes are truly the source of consciousness, then you have no free will because all chemical processes are deterministic in nature.


We may, indeed, have no free will. But a genetic adaptation may also explain what we call, free will..... "deterministic ", may be an illusion of our myopic perspective. "all", a sweeping conclusion.

If this is the case, then you aren’t actually choosing to read this article. Nature has pre-destined you to read this article.


You are setting up a false alternative. Predisposed may be more accurate. Which is possible, but a range of choices within an overall framework of "no free will"( I realize that requires more explanation, but, -) , may also be possible.

Your life has no meaning since you don’t actually control it.


Life can or could have meaning without one's control of it. I am not so sure you are qualified to decide what is "meaningful".

It’s either that or consciousness is infinite, eternal and external to the brain and this physical universe.


Again, fallacy of false alternatives, supporting fallacy of Hasty Conclusions.

4.
Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility.


Unsupported conclusion. Black Swan Fallacy. Maybe someone can argue this point better by giving examples...I'm getting tired.

This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain. Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious and that attempting to do so by way of QM results in a logical contradiction, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of biochemical processes.


Again, reaching a conclusion from faulty logic. Previous fallacies can not support this. Consciousness does reside in a person's brain, as demonstrated by disconnecting it from the person, chemically.


5. The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain. There is no known mechanism of memory transport in the brain. There is no center point in the brain that can be observed to initiate conscious thought. Any attempt to explain memory as being local to the brain requires a retention of state. If matter changes state, information is lost.


Brain damage does result in memory loss. You are reaching conclusions that are speculations, using Non-support fallacy.


This is a fundamental proven law of the universe. Because we know QM is not logically capable of explaining consciousness and because we know LTP is the only physical mechanism of state retention and because we know there are not enough synapses to account for human memory, it is illogical conclude that all memory is local to the brain.

Highly speculative conclusions.

If consciousness is a product of deterministic biochemical processes, this again violates logic on grounds of emergence as well as invalidating free will.


circular reasoning back to false conclusions.

So here in lies a choice. You can choose to believe that consciousness is the product of biochemical processes (which is illogical) and that you have no free will, or you can choose to believe that consciousness is eternal and external to the brain which allows for free will. No matter what, you can not say that consciousness is internal to the brain and that you have free will. This is not a logical option.


Fallacy of false alternatives. Your conclusions of what is "logical" are supported only by logical fallacies. To dictate how one should reason, is presumptuous on your part.
Why you feel the need to prove external consciousness is also a question.

Chose wisely atheists… oops! I’m sorry, you don’t have a choice. Deterministic chemical processes already made that decision for you.
[/quote]

And also for people to be superstitious. The convoluted, myopic , and fallacy riddled reasoning of a "superior" evangelist only makes sense to their ilk.

What difference should it make to you that someone does not embrace superstition as part of their world view?

If a person needs a list of do's and don'ts to guide them through life, then i do hope they don't follow the garbage that usually comes along with that list.

All in all, our conclusions are fallacious, Hasty Conclusions, because we don't know all the data. ;)

That is the Human Condition. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm


Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest